in person v Respondent — 2024

This was a hearing on the claimant's application for interim relief in relation to an asserted automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. The judge heard no oral evidence and made only a summary predictive assessment on the papers and submissions. He stated expressly that the decision was not a final finding of fact and would not bind any future tribunal.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant's 8 February 2024 report about possible software or licence issues could arguably amount to a protected disclosure, but found the precise legal obligation said to have been breached was unclear. The judge also considered later complaints in late June and early July 2024, including concerns about data transfers and password security, but held that these lacked sufficient particularity and, on the claimant's own account, may have been no more than suspicion. He noted that the respondent said the claimant's line management had changed at her request rather than as a detriment, and that there was no evidence supporting the claimant's suggestion of a conspiracy involving A or disclosures to previous employers.

On the dismissal question, the judge considered the 3 July 2024 decision to place the claimant on paid leave, suspend systems access and alter communication arrangements. On the documents before him, he found the respondent's explanation more plausible: that the step was intended to assist the claimant, give her space to progress her grievance, and address an unworkable situation with colleagues. He also found the claimant's insistence on restrictive communication methods likely unreasonable in the absence of medical evidence, and noted that she had been threatening legal proceedings and indicating constructive dismissal before the final events.

Applying the interim relief authorities, including Taplin, Sarfraz and Chacko, together with the constructive dismissal analysis in Kaur and the guidance in Blackvey Ventures/Gahir and Eiger Securities on identifying the alleged legal obligation, the judge held it was not likely that a final tribunal would find the pleaded protected disclosures had been made in the required form or that they were the principal reason for dismissal. The interim relief application therefore failed and no monetary award was made in this decision.